Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel strikes off nurse Nadia Mohammed over false IV product labelling

The Nursing and Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise Committee has struck nurse and midwife Nadia Mohammed off the register, finding she dishonestly allowed intravenous drip vials to be sold with false lot numbers, expiry dates and ingredient lists over an 18-month period.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 21 July 2026 · Updated 23 July 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 23 July 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Concerning Nadia Mohammed, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 12I1915E).

Decision date: 21 July 2026 · Hearing started 13 July 2026 and ended 21 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Nadia Mohammed, a registered nurse and midwife, distributed or sold intravenous drip products without the manufacturer's permission and allowed vials to be labelled with a false lot number, a false expiry date, an inaccurate ingredients list and another company's name used without permission. The panel found she acted dishonestly to make the product appear more valuable, decided her fitness to practise was impaired, and imposed a striking-off order with an 18-month interim suspension.

Charges

That, as a Registered Nurse, between 2019 and 2022 in relation to IV drip solutions: (1) distributed or sold products to Company A (White Night London Ltd) without the permission of the manufacturer; (2) created and/or allowed labels to be placed on vials (a) displaying a false lot number, (b) displaying a false expiry date, (c) displaying a list of ingredients which did not reflect the true ingredients contained within them, and (d) displaying the 'Intravita' name without their knowledge or permission; (3) the actions at charge 2 were carried out with the intention of making the product appear to be of a higher value than it was; (4) the actions at charge 2 were dishonest in that she knew she was distributing products with false information displayed on them. And, in light of the above, that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.

Findings

Charges 1, 2(a) and 2(b) were proved by way of admission; charges 2(c), 2(d), 3 and 4 were found proved. The panel found the facts amounted to misconduct, identifying breaches of the Code at standards 10.3, 14.1, 14.2, 18, 20.1, 20.2 and 21.3. It found that insight and remorse were limited, particularly in relation to the dishonesty and the duty of candour, and that there were attitudinal concerns which had not been remedied and would be difficult to remediate. The panel concluded that all four limbs of the Grant test were engaged and that there was a real risk of repetition, finding fitness to practise currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. It determined that a striking-off order was the only sanction that was sufficient, appropriate and proportionate, and imposed an interim suspension order for 18 months to cover the appeal period.

Mitigating factors

Early admission on charges 1, 2(a) and 2(b); some remorse shown.

Aggravating factors

Abuse of a position of trust, in that Ms Mohammed abused the trust between her and Intravita, White Night, Ms Charpilloz and the clients receiving care; pattern of misconduct over a period of time, approximately 18 months; placing people receiving care from herself and/or White Night at risk of harm; lack of transparency, in that Ms Mohammed has not been fully open and honest during the process of this hearing; limited insight into failings; degree of premeditation.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Nursing and Midwifery Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.